Inequality and Social Justice

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
5 EFFICIENCY AND EQUITY CHAPTER.
Advertisements

Assessing “Success” in Anti-Poverty Policy Lars Osberg Dalhousie University October 1, 2004.
Moral Reasoning Making appropriate use of facts and opinions to decide the right thing to do Quotations from Jacob Needleman’s The American Soul A Crucial.
“Analyzing Health Equity Using Household Survey Data” Owen O’Donnell, Eddy van Doorslaer, Adam Wagstaff and Magnus Lindelow, The World Bank, Washington.
International trends in poverty: how rates mislead but intensity and labour supply matter Lars Osberg - Department of Economics, Dalhousie University.
Efficiency, Equality, Poverty Doctoral Course, Université de la Méditerranée – Nicolas Gravel.
Equalization of Local Governments’ Financial Capacity Emergency presentation prepared for the Prague Meeting of „Fiscal Decentralisation in South Caucasus.
Chapter 6 Economic Inequality.
When can we say than one society is better than another ? Nicolas Gravel (CSH -Delhi & IDEP-GREQAM (Marseille, France)
Normative comparisons of distributions of one attribute.
Political Philosophy Philosophy 2B - Ray Critch Lecture 7 - Justice In this lecture Role of Justice in political philosophy? Types of Justice.
Dr. Shahram Yazdani Health Equity Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences School of Medical Education Strategic Policy Sessions: 02.
What is Economic Growth? How do we know when we are better off?
Poverty measures: Properties and Robustness
Unit 5 – Economic Rights Economics Rights of the Citizen.
Overview Aggregating preferences The Social Welfare function The Pareto Criterion The Compensation Principle.
1 The student will learn about: §4.6 Applications to Economics. producers’ surplus, and consumers’ surplus, the Gini index.
Investment Analysis and Portfolio management Lecture: 24 Course Code: MBF702.
Dominance rankings: illustrations Some illustrations.
Company LOGO New Paradigm for International Insurance Comparison: With an Application to Comparison of Seven Insurance Markets Wei Zheng, Peking University.
Issues with Representing the Welfare of Agents U(x) is fundamentally Unobservable, proxies are needed, here we deal with some of the issues.
Presentation Pro © 2001 by Prentice Hall, Inc. Economics: Principles in Action C H A P T E R 13 Economic Challenges.
Market Failures 1. Review 1.Define Market Failure. 2.Identify the three market failures we have learned so far in this unit. 3.Explain why are public.
Session 3 Review Distributions Pen’s parade, quantile function, cdf Size, spread, poverty Data Income vector, cdf Today Inequality and economics Welfare.
Farid Abolhassani Equity 12. Learning Objectives After working through this chapter, you will be able to: Describe the relationship between equality and.
Justice as Fairness by John Rawls. Rawls looks at justice. Kant’s ethics and Utilitarianism are about right and wrong actions. For example: Is it ethical.
Session 2 Review Today Elements of the course (info cards)
Capability and women’s Well-being in India: an empirical study based on National Family Health Survey- 2 & 3 Amlan Majumder Lecturer in Economics, Dinhata.
Poverty measures: Properties and Robustness Michael Lokshin DECRG-PO The World Bank.
Lecture 8 Social Regulation. Correction of market failures, not dealing with the natural monopoly problem Regulation of health, safety, environment, public.
Virtual University of Pakistan
National Income.
How Do Taxes and Benefits Shape Popular Support for Redistribution?
Public policy and European society University of Castellanza
Measures of Development
Introduction to Politics and International Studies Reach Summer School
WHAT IS DEVELOPMENT?.
Consumers, Producers, and the Efficiency of markets
Advanced Income Tax Law
Investment Analysis and Portfolio management
GOVERNMENT Write words or draw pictures that come to mind about when you hear the word “government.” What is the reason or purpose for having a government?
Efficiency and Equity in a Competitive Market
INCOME REDISTRIBUTION
C h a p t e r 2 EFFICIENCY, MARKETS, AND GOVERNMENTS
Measurement 12 Inequality.
International Taxation
Animals, Food and Ethics
ARPIT JAIN | TANYA SINGH THAKUR | VINTI AGARWAL
EFFICIENCY, MARKETS, AND GOVERNMENTS
National Income 9/12/2018 Dr.P.S EAB IV unit.
Theoretical Tools of Public Finance
Employee Contributions: Determining Individual Pay
Unemployment What are the different types of unemployment?
Unemployment What are the different types of unemployment?
Unemployment What are the different types of unemployment?
Economics: Principles in Action
Unemployment What are the different types of unemployment?
Unemployment What are the different types of unemployment?
Are countries all at the same levels of economic development?
Unemployment What are the different types of unemployment?
Production Definition:-Economic production is an activity carried out under the control and responsibility of an institutional unit that uses inputs of.
Chapter 13: Economic Challenges Section 3
Unemployment What are the different types of unemployment?
Unemployment What are the different types of unemployment?
Unemployment What are the different types of unemployment?
INCOME REDISTRIBUTION: CONCEPTUAL ISSUES
National Income.
Chapter 34 Welfare Key Concept: Arrow’s impossibility theorem, social welfare functions Limited support of how market preserves fairness.
DEV 501: THE THEORY OF CONSUMER CHOICE
Price and Volume Measures
Presentation transcript:

Inequality and Social Justice Master 2 course, AMSE – 2015-2016 Nicolas Gravel

« The importance of the formal results lies ultimately in their relevance to normal communication, and to things that people argue about and fight for » Amartya K. Sen

What are the things that people argue about and fight for ? People argue about and fight for the defense of their private interest (much too often perhaps) People argue about and fight for the construction of a « better » world A better world = a world with less suffering, less exploitation, more…justice

What are the things that people argue about and fight for ? People argue about and fight for the defense of their private interest (much too often perhaps) People argue about and fight for the construction of a « better » world A better world = a world with less suffering, less exploitation, more…justice

What are the things that people argue about and fight for ? People argue about and fight for the defense of their private interest (much too often perhaps) People argue about and fight for the construction of a « better » world A better world = a world with less suffering, less exploitation, more…justice

« Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. » John Rawls

But what is justice ? When can we say that a particular social arrangement is « just » and another « unjust » ? When can we say that a social institution is more just than another ?

Purpose of the course To present answers proposed by economists to these questions More specifically, to present methods used by economists to compare societies on the basis of their performance in achieving justice Many methods discussed here are ethically robust

Comparing societies ? Comparing two different societies at a given moment (is France more just than the US ?) Comparing a given society at different points of time (is India better now than fifteen years ago ?) Comparing a society after a tax reform with the same society without the tax reform etc.

Comparing societies ? Society = A list of individuals Approaches focus on specific attributes of these individuals Attributes: Income, health, education, access to public good, etc. Comparing societies amount to comparing distributions of these attributes across individuals

Robust methods of normative appraisal ? Method: we want it to be routinely and « easily » implementable Based on explicit ethical principles Robustness: ethical principles that justify the methods are widely acceptable Price to pay for robustness: Incompleteness. The methods may fail to provide answers to the questions above. Ethical principles may conflict.

Comparing societies: some examples Comparing 12 OECD countries (+ India) based on their distribution of disposable income and some public goods (based on Gravel, Moyes and Tarroux (2008) Sample of some 20 000 households in each country (1998-2002) Disposable income: income available after all taxes and social security contributions have been paid and all transfers payment have been received Incomes are made comparable across households by equivalence scale adjustment Incomes are made comparable across countries by adjusting for purchasing power differences

What are these data saying on justice ? Except for the 10% poorest, americans in every income group have larger income than French, swedish and German. Does that mean that US is a « better » society than France, Sweden or Germany? Americans in every income group have larger income than British, Australians, Italians, spanish and Indians. Does that mean that US is a better society than UK, Australia, Italy, Spain or India ? It would seem so if income was the only relevant attribute. But is that so ?

Another attribute: regional infant mortality Infant mortality (number of children who die before the age of one per thousand births) is a good indicator of the overall working of the medical system of the region where individuals live How do countries compare in terms of the different infant mortality rate that they offer to their citizens on the basis of their place of residence ?

Other attribute: average class size in public schools How do countries compare in terms of the distribution of the class sizes at public school ? Class size: a good indicator of the school quality

General principles that can be derived from these comparisons Countries differ by the total amount of each attribute they allocate to their citizens :« size of the cake » They also differ by the way they share this cake Less obviously, they also differ by the way they correlate the attribute between people (are individuals who are « rich » in income also those who are « rich » in health, or education? )

2 cakes of different sizes: US & Sweden

Sharing the US cake

Sharing the Swedish cake

Ethical principles examined in this course consider that: For a given distribution, a larger cake is better than a smaller one Given the size, a « more equal » distribution of the cake is better than a less equal one (requires a definition of what is meant by « more equal ») Given sizes and distributions of several « cakes », less correlation between cakes is better

Modern theory of economic justice A difficult birth: An impossibility theorem (Arrow 1951) It is impossible to define a consistent and informationally parcimonious ranking of societies that is respectful of individual preferences Escape out of this theorem have taken two routes: welfarist and non-welfarist

What is justice ? A welfarist answer (1) Welfarism: The only thing that matters for evaluating a society is the distribution of welfare – happiness - between individuals Individual preferences are important insofar as they are connected to individual welfare A just society is a society that maximises an increasing function of individual happiness Philosophical foundations: Hume, Bentham, Beccaria

What is justice ? A welfarist answer (2) Fundamental assumption: individual happiness can be measured and compared (necessary to escape from Arrow’s theorem) We don’t need to know how to measure happiness but we have to accept the idea that we can measure it in a meaningful way. Individual welfare is assumed to depend upon the individual attributes The relationship between welfare and attributes is assumed to satisfy basic properties

Specifically, we assume: Happiness is increasing with respect to each attribute (more income makes people happier, so does more health, smaller class sizes, etc.) The extra pleasure brought about by an extra unit of an attribute decreases with the level of the attribute (a rich individual gets less extra pleasure from an extra euro than does an otherwise identical poorer individual) The rate of increase in happiness with respect to a particular attribute is decreasing with respect to every other attribute

Which function of individual happiness should we maximize ? Classical Utilitarianism (Bentham): the sum Modern view point: a function that exhibits some aversion with respect to happiness-inequality Extreme form of aversion toward happiness-inequality (John Rawls): Maxi-Min, we should focus only on the welfare of the less happy person in the society.

Contrasting Maxi-min and Utilitarianism

Contrasting Maxi-min and Utilitarianism

Contrasting Maxi-min and Utilitarianism sum of income is larger in US than in UK and in UK than in France

Contrasting Maxi-min and Utilitarianism sum of income is larger in US than in UK and in UK than in France but the poorest individual is richer in France than in the US or in the UK

To sum up, for welfarism: 1: A society = a list of combinations of observable attributes (one such combination for every individual) 2: Each combination of attributes is transformed into (unobservable) happiness 3: Societies are compared on the basis of their distributions of happiness

Society A is better than society B if the distribution of happiness in A is considered better than that in B by any function that exhibits aversion to happiness-inequality, under the assumption that the relationship between unobservable individual happiness and obervable individual attributes satisfies the above properties (Welfarist dominance)

non-welfarist principles Some philosophers and economists object to welfarism They claim that individual happiness is not the only thing that matters, that individual happiness can not be meaningfully measured, and/or that it is not society’s business to be concerned with individual’s happiness Other individual attributes are considered intrinsically important: freedom, ressources, preferences,…

Object of the course Propose operational methods for comparing societies that are tightly connected to ethical principles (welfarist or not) Because of the difficulty of accepting a specific ethical theory, look for methods that are agreed upon by a wide spectrum of ethical theories (robustness) To the extent possible, try to connect the rankings of societies to elementary operations having a clear meaning Theory of this is well-established when attention is restricted to distributions of one attribute (income) A lot of research is needed to develop robust methods for the multi-attributes case

When can we say that one society is better than another When can we say that one society is better than another ? (the one attribute case) n individuals identical in every respect other than the considered attribute (income) y = (y1,…,yn) an income distribution y(.) = (y(1),…,y(n)) the ordered permutation of y (considered equivalent to y if the ethics used is « anonymous ») Q: When are we « sure » that y is « more just » than z ?

Anwer no 1: Mana and Robin Hood When y(.) has been obtained from z(.) by giving mana to some, or all, the individuals When y(.) has been obtained from z(.) by a finite sequence of bilateral Pigou-Dalton (Robin Hood) transfers between a donator that is richer than the recipient. When y(.) has been obtained from z(.) by both manas and Robin Hood transfers

Mana ?

Mana ?

Robin Hood and Mana ?

Robin Hood and Mana ?

Robin Hood and Mana ?

Robin Hood and Mana ?

Robin Hood and Mana ?

Robin Hood and Mana ?

Robin Hood and Mana ?

Robin Hood and Mana ?

Answer no 2: Poverty dominance Important issue: poverty How do we define poverty ? Basic principle: You define a (poverty) line that partitions the population into 2 groups: poor and rich Pour commencer, faites ressortir l'intérêt du sujet pour l'assistance. Donnez une brève vue d'ensemble de la présentation. Tenez compte de l'intérêt de l'assistance pour le sujet ainsi que de leurs connaissances en la matière pour choisir votre vocabulaire, des exemples et des illustrations. Insistez sur l'importance du sujet pour capter l'attention des auditeurs.

2 measures of poverty 1) Headcount: Count the number (or the fraction) of people below the line 2) poverty gap: Calculate the minimal amount of money needed to eliminate poverty as defined by the line Pour commencer, faites ressortir l'intérêt du sujet pour l'assistance. Donnez une brève vue d'ensemble de la présentation. Tenez compte de l'intérêt de l'assistance pour le sujet ainsi que de leurs connaissances en la matière pour choisir votre vocabulaire, des exemples et des illustrations. Insistez sur l'importance du sujet pour capter l'attention des auditeurs.

Contrasting headcount and poverty gap Australia Austria Canada France Germany Italy Portugal Spain sweden Switz. UK USA India 4733 6815 4285 6170 5855 3554 2546 2747 5808 8679 4898 5403 789 9237 10730 8977 9555 10012 6575 4602 5407 9056 14615 8598 11025 1019 11795 12850 11935 11793 12024 8059 6110 7045 10540 17334 10883 14687 1168 14580 14725 14338 13441 13229 9438 7549 8646 11982 19806 13337 18142 1309 17377 16588 16839 15092 14857 10933 8666 10113 13371 22044 15854 21581 1462 20456 18665 19494 16966 16614 12629 10028 11656 14723 24554 18579 25206 1649 24203 20921 22382 19169 18376 14769 11415 13639 16147 27696 21574 29387 1859 28467 24042 25955 21221 17342 13930 16535 18140 32095 25188 34819 2167 34592 28069 30958 26834 25201 20743 18113 20968 21091 38254 30190 43373 2694 54537 38539 44457 40175 39217 31174 32047 35457 30818 61849 49022 79030 4735 Line = 9 600 There are 2 poor in France and 1 poor in germany but poverty gap in Germany is 3745 while it is only 3465 in France Pour commencer, faites ressortir l'intérêt du sujet pour l'assistance. Donnez une brève vue d'ensemble de la présentation. Tenez compte de l'intérêt de l'assistance pour le sujet ainsi que de leurs connaissances en la matière pour choisir votre vocabulaire, des exemples et des illustrations. Insistez sur l'importance du sujet pour capter l'attention des auditeurs.

Poverty dominance Problem with poverty measurement: how do we draw the line ? Criterion: society A is better than society B if, no matter how the line is drawn, poverty is lower in A than in B for the poverty gap (poverty gap dominance)

Answer no 3: Lorenz dominance Lorenz dominance criterion: Society A is better than society B if the total income held by individuals below a certain rank is higher in A than in B no matter what the rank is. Easy to see with Lorenz curves. Let us draw Lorenz curves with our data.

Cool! the 3 answers are all equivalent to the welfarist dominance answer It is equivalent to say : society A is more just than society B for any welfarist ethics One can go from B to A by a finite sequence of Robin Hood transfers and/or mana Poverty gap in A is lower than in B for all poverty lines Lorenz curve in A is everywhere above that in B.

This result is a beautiful one Comes from mathematics: Hardy, Littlewood & Polya (1936), Berge (1959), Adapted to economics by Kolm (1966;1969), Dasgupta, Sen and Starett (1973) and Sen (1973) It provides a solid justification for the use of Lorenz curves Si vous avez plusieurs points, étapes ou idées-clé à traiter, utilisez plusieurs diapositives. Déterminez si l'assistance est censée comprendre un nouveau concept, apprendre une procédure ou approfondir un concept déjà connu. Choisissez l'explication appropriée pour étayer chacun des points traités. Vous pouvez accompagner votre présentation de données techniques supplémentaires sous formes de copies papier, disquettes, messages électroniques ou sites Internet. Développez chaque point de façon à communiquer avec l'assistance.

Lorenz dominance chart Switzerland US Austria Australia UK France Germany Canada Sweden Italy Spain Portugal India

Important challenge: to extend to many attributes Same welfarist ethics Suitable generalization of poverty notions (poverty in several dimensions) No Lorenz curves New issue: Correlation between attributes

Aversion to correlation ? a red society Literacy rate (%) 70 60 50 40 400 500 600 700 Income (rupees/month)

Aversion to correlation ? a red society Literacy rate (%) and a white society 70 60 50 40 400 500 600 700 Income (rupees/month)

Aversion to correlation ? a red society Literacy rate (%) and a white society white society is more just 70 60 50 40 400 500 600 700 Income (rupees/month)

Bidimensional dominance chart Germany Switzerland France Sweden US Australia Canada UK Austria Spain Italy Portugal India